Rankings update

All 500m races including industry cups were factored in to the rankings. Remember, the ranking uses adjusted race times but you can always see your team's unadjusted race times in the race archive section.

We will add one more regatta (the Quebec Cup) before calling it a wrap for 2009. Thanks to everyone who sent suggestions, and pointed out problems. Please keep them coming. Special thanks to Sara for getting the idea off the ground and helping with the website, Peter for helping with the data, and Power Demon for laying out the framework. We plan to keep the ball rolling in 2010.

Re: Rankings update

Re: Rankings update

Why are the industry cup races included...since only a small percentage of teams participated in those? I don't think that they should be included...just my opinion.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 16 2009, 11:03 PM

So the Mofos would be ranked higher perhaps?

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 16 2009, 11:29 PM

great work MJC, keep it up looking forward to next year

Anonymous

Thanks, Matt.

September 17 2009, 8:23 AM

Love the rankings, but I agree that challenge cups should not be included. The reason being that our team only races these for the win, and not for time, so we take the foot off the gas when the lead is enough to be certain. Other teams may do the same, which would make them appear slower than they really are.

Also, GWN this year had incredible wind variations. It went from light headwind, to strong headwind, to strong tailwind. The same teams were logging anywhere from 2:02-2:04's in the first heat on Saturday morning only to see times go up to 2:07-2:11 in the afternoon, and then back down to 2:00's again on Sunday (even sub 2:00 in Hydro's case).

I'm not saying you should throw the results out completely...but how can you include them when they vary so wildly?

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 8:52 AM

"I'm not saying you should throw the results out completely...but how can you include them when they vary so wildly?"

It all comes out in the wash - so what if GWN scews your ranking time by like 0.2 of a second.

Most teams have logged at least 10+ races this year and sometimes you get the faster lane some times the slower. At the end of the day the rankings will give a good rough approximation of where your team fits in - and if in doubt you can even use the Mofos race comparison tool to see if you tended to beat the crews ahead of you head to head.

Anonymous

What I'm saying...

September 17 2009, 9:02 AM

Is that for teams that competed at GWN their times would have been overly inflated by Saturday afternoons big headwind, relative to teams that did not compete at GWN. You could make a similar, but less strong argument about Sunday afternoons times being too fast, but the effect was much less noticable.

I'm not worried about my own teams ranking. A quick check shows me it didn't move anyhow, but even so that's not the point.

Consensus on Saturday was that afternoon times were about +4 to +6 seconds slower. That's a HUGE variation. Could it be smoothed down?

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 9:14 AM

He normalizes the data. Read the methodology.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 10:35 AM

Re: race to win vs. race for time

Shouldn't these be the same thing? I mean, if you have optimized your racing strategy for time, would you also not have optimized your chances of winning?

The only case where this is not true is if you're so far ahead of other teams in the race that you don't paddle as hard. But that rarely happens. And if a team does that, well, they deserve their rankings to be pulled down. I'm not accusing your team of doing that, of course.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 10:41 AM

Except with the industry cups, some were hotley contested with teams of similar abilities, while others just needed their regular start and then coast to the line.

I see an argument for both inclusion and exclusion, but there definitely were a few teams in the industry cup challenges that just coasted as there was no challenge.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 10:50 AM

Why is Stratford not being used in the rankings?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but with teams like Hanalei, The Blades, BMO, Golden Plate, etc. all going, there should be enough data to add it to the rankings as well. I mean, if Pickering HS, Welland, Waterloo, Hamilton, and Oakville are in there, what reason would there be to not include this one?

Thank you.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 11:01 AM

Well Hanalei isn't being called "Hanalei" for this festival. So unless you have first hand knowledge of the team members it be hard for Matt to put them as Hanalei.

Lots of teams pack it in after GWN, and in many cases Stratford is a case of filling the boat, maybe a not true reflection of the team? Of course everyone knows about the wonderful lane issues at this course.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 11:51 AM

Industry cup: to include or not?

If the rankings start excluding certain races, then it'll get ugly fast!

What if there was a HUGE tail wind in the afternoon and all of the industry cup goers have significantly faster times? I doubt there would be this much whining about this topic! Also, should the rankings exclude those teams that raced early enough to squeeze in 2 races before the headwind came in?

Bottom line is that there are conditions that can not be controlled but the rankings will normalize to show an accurate time. One race out of 10+ won't make a huge difference.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 12:16 PM

RE: Previous Stratford post (2 posts ago):

Your post was not fair at all. If a team has "packed it in" then they wouldn't waste their money doing more regattas. I assure you that Golden Plate, The Blades, BMO, and Hanalei will all bring similar rosters as other regattas. Your season might end at GWN but theirs doesn't and therefore they are still practicing and preparing to do as well as they possibly can in Stratford.

As for Hanalei, yes it is them. Ask any of them and they'll tell you this. They change their name for this regatta in honor of one of their paddler's father - a very classy move in their part. In fact, I believe they donated to charity their $500 winnings from last year's 100m sprint victory also in Lloyd's memory. This is not the first year they do this (the name change).

By your rationale then any team that has a bad showing at a regatta could ask to have that regatta removed from the rankings because "it wasn't their regular roster". I believe that as long as you enetered your team in a regatta it should count towards the rankings (with the possible exception of Hanalei who registered under a different name and could therefore challenge this regatta being included with their other ones - something I doubt they'd do). All the other teams, though... tough luck!

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 12:18 PM

... and there are lane issues at every course, so that shouldn't affect the ability to include Stratford in the rankings either. Are you telling me that Montreal, Toronto Island, GWN, etc all have even lanes?

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 12:32 PM

Geez dude, relax.

I was hypothizing why Stratford might not be included in the rankings. It seems you have a vested interest in the rankings or something. Its just a fun thing, I could care less if Stratford is included or not.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 12:42 PM

"By your rationale then any team that has a bad showing at a regatta could ask to have that regatta removed from the rankings because "it wasn't their regular roster". I believe that as long as you enetered your team in a regatta it should count towards the rankings (with the possible exception of Hanalei who registered under a different name and could therefore challenge this regatta being included with their other ones - something I doubt they'd do). All the other teams, though... tough luck"

I think I would reverse that. If a team races under another name, regardless of the reason, they should be listed under that new name. However, if they request that those races be added to their regular name, that's when you do so.

Anonymous

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 12:55 PM

That's exactly what I meant... sorry if it wasn't clear. In other words, if they chose to, Hanalei would be the only team that could have these races not added with the others (because of the different name). The other teams, though, wouldn't have that option.

MJC

Re: Rankings update

September 17 2009, 7:15 PM

OK, it looks like there are a decent number of teams in common between Stratford and the rankings so we should be able to include Stratford. We will take a careful look when the results are out. At the very least we will add Stratford to the race archive.

My personal preference is to include the industry cup races simply because they add more data points and it keeps things simple: include all races. For most teams the industry cup races are competitive. Power Demon, if you are out there did you include all races as well?

Thanks to the people who emailed us regarding slightly different team names that should be treated as the same team. We updated the GWN team names so that now more teams are recognized as being in common between GWN and the rankings. This produces a slightly different adjustment curve and most team's GWN times shifted by a couple tenths of a second as a result.